Page 49 - Advances In Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining

Zero Harm coal mining 35

Table 3.1 Characteristics of occupational injuries versus
occupational illness

Injuries Illnesses
Onset
Primarily acute. Exception: Primarily chronic. Many occupational
nonsymptomatic internal trauma exposures require years before the
development of clinical symptoms
Presentation
Expression of injury is normally obvious Expression of illness often subtle or
to others or through pain to the victim unobvious, especially early in the illness
development; e.g., lung dysfunction
Requirement for Medical Confirmation
Yes, but most often to define the severity Yes, occupational illnesses are easily missed
and treatment or underestimated without medical
surveillance
Consequences
Functional: Loss of functionality directly Functional: Loss of functionality directly
related to severity. Potentially reversible related to stage of illness and impact to vital
Economic: Typically a loss of income for systems. Seldom reversible beyond a certain
victim despite workers compensation. Can degree of dysfunction; e.g., noise-induced
be substantial for victim, family, and hearing loss Economic: Typically less than
company as severity increases injuries. Can be substantial for victim and
family, but disproportionately lower for
company versus serious injury

l Ensure consensus regarding the meaning and purpose of Zero Harm. The process of coming
to consensus will enhance the credibility of its intent.
l If the intention is to reflect a vision to protect employees at the highest achievable level,
ensure that is clear to everyone. Don’t assume. Acknowledge the challenge in making the
vision reality.
l If the intention is a specific performance goal, define “harm” in a manner that is aspirational,
yet realistic. Do not define the destination and promise a successful trip without having a
very good map and compass and the knowledge to use them. Ensure your intent is clear.
Don’t assume.
l Consistently check to ensure the use of Zero Harm in any context is not promoting under-
reporting. Confidential perception surveys can assist with this.
Alternatives to the strict interpretation of Zero Harm focus on an appropriate definition of
l
harm (i.e., damage, loss, injury, outcomes, etc.). For example, instead of Zero Harm, another
more balanced option is: zero hazardous activities (and/or actions) resulting in meaningful
injury (exposure, illness, etc.); i.e., zero H.A.R.M.
There should be no obligation to use Zero Harm or zero H.A.R.M. for relevance among peers
l
or competitors, to make an impression, to appease a consultant, analyst, trade association, or
other entity not directly responsible for the welfare of those at risk.